Let's start with a riddle: Who invented the first gas-electric hybrid car and in what year?
(Answer at the end of the article)
Last week, I forgot to mention, while talking about the reduction in our consumption by 10% that it would add up to 3,750,000,000 litres a year for the country, that it would also mean a reduction of green gas emissions in the order of 9,000,000 tons of CO2. That would represent one third of the national goal of green gas reduction.
This week , a Montreal newspaper has published an article about what hydrogen could represent as THE future source of energy for this planet. Although it has a bright future, everything is not as rosy as it is presented in this particular article, so I will try to make the picture more nuanced.
Those of us who are old enough sometimes associate hydrogen with two rather negative memories. I don't know if you have ever seen the famous report on the crash of the Hindenburg Zeppelin that showed us this huge balloon bursting into flames? This surely was one of the most atrocious events on film in the twentieth century.
Another memorable event in this explosive century was the first time we saw an "H" (H standing for hydrogen) bomb explode. Much more powerful than the two atomic bombs that destroyed Hiroshima and Nagasaki, it was seen as the ultimate weapon of mass destruction.
It's with such a pedigree that hydrogen started its career as the object of research in order to make it a clean propulsion mode that could eventually replace oil, this non-renewable and polluting fuel. But these stories have left many people under the impression that driving a hydrogen-propelled vehicle is like sitting on a rolling bomb. And who in their right mind would want to take that risk?
Hydrogen is an infinite resource. You can find it anywhere in nature, in great quantities. One of the most obvious places where one can find it is in water since water is made of two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom, hence the formula H2O. (As previously noted, the first time I heard about the water propelled car was in 1974. And I later learned that the subject gas been on the drawing boards way before that).
How does it work?
It's very simple. There are two main methods to make a car run on hydrogen. The simplest method starts with a traditional internal combustion engine, which is modified. This method has the advantage of being inexpensive but since these engines are inefficient, everybody is leaning towards the second solution.
The second solution is called the « fuel cell ». This solution is about four times more efficient than the other one. It works on a principle similar to that of a battery, in that a chemical reaction produces electricity, except that in the fuel cell's case, you can keep feeding the fuel cell so that it will never go "flat", or run down, like an ordinary battery does.
The fuel cell uses the stored hydrogen and mixes it with oxygen to create electricity that will feed electric motors. All that will come out of exhaust pipe will be water vapour.
The danger
Is the danger superior with hydrogen than with oil?
The answer would be...yes. That being said, many tests have been done on ultra-strong tanks (much stronger than normal gas tanks) that have shown how safe they are. I have seen testers fire on them with guns, and others drop them from impressive heights. Of course, crash tests have been done as well. All these tests have proved to be successful.
So, why the "but"?
-The first problem resides in the very high cost of this technology so far. We would easily multiply the price of a car by three.
-The second problem has to do with infrastructures. Where do we go to get hydrogen? And in a safe way? Just think about the unbelievable number of gas stations. The most popular prediction regarding the installation of a viable network leans towards fifteen years.
-The third and biggest problem is this one: Hydrogen is not a fuel as such. It's an energy transporter. So, to make hydrogen, you have to use another source of energy, and if we end up producing hydrogen from oil, gas or any other polluting source... the problem remains.
...There's the hick: If to make hydrogen, we use electricity produced from the combustion of oil, gas, coal or any other polluting and green gas emitting source, we do not solve the environmental problem. That's why a hydrogen vehicle must get its fuel (hydrogen) from a non-polluting source like solar, wind, etc.
Of course, we could wonder if the powerful oil and automotive lobbies wouldn't happen to be behind the slow progress of this technology. When you think that in less than ten years, the American people went from a speech to a lunar landing, there are reasons to wonder. But I won't presume of these people's intentions. Even if to do so is very tempting indeed.
That's why we have to be prudent towards the miracle solution that hydrogen cars seem to represent. We are not there yet. What's more, the present American government has lowered present demands for car manufacturers to make their cars more fuel efficient. So, by announcing a subsidy for hydrogen car research, which won't necessarily result in anything concrete, they still favour actual cheaper and doable solutions.
What do we do in the meantime?
As I said before, many scientists see gas-electric hybrid vehicles as the best temporary solution for the next ten to fifteen years. And, in the weeks to come, I will talk to you about other types of fuels.
Bio-diesel, ethanol, natural gas and other alternatives will be studied so that you can know more about them and how much they would cost you if you can use them. I have also been approached by some representatives and inventors that want to show me their miracle solutions. We'll see.
(Answer to the riddle: Ferdinand Porsche in a race car in 1904!)
(Answer at the end of the article)
Last week, I forgot to mention, while talking about the reduction in our consumption by 10% that it would add up to 3,750,000,000 litres a year for the country, that it would also mean a reduction of green gas emissions in the order of 9,000,000 tons of CO2. That would represent one third of the national goal of green gas reduction.
This week , a Montreal newspaper has published an article about what hydrogen could represent as THE future source of energy for this planet. Although it has a bright future, everything is not as rosy as it is presented in this particular article, so I will try to make the picture more nuanced.
Those of us who are old enough sometimes associate hydrogen with two rather negative memories. I don't know if you have ever seen the famous report on the crash of the Hindenburg Zeppelin that showed us this huge balloon bursting into flames? This surely was one of the most atrocious events on film in the twentieth century.
Another memorable event in this explosive century was the first time we saw an "H" (H standing for hydrogen) bomb explode. Much more powerful than the two atomic bombs that destroyed Hiroshima and Nagasaki, it was seen as the ultimate weapon of mass destruction.
It's with such a pedigree that hydrogen started its career as the object of research in order to make it a clean propulsion mode that could eventually replace oil, this non-renewable and polluting fuel. But these stories have left many people under the impression that driving a hydrogen-propelled vehicle is like sitting on a rolling bomb. And who in their right mind would want to take that risk?
Hydrogen is an infinite resource. You can find it anywhere in nature, in great quantities. One of the most obvious places where one can find it is in water since water is made of two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom, hence the formula H2O. (As previously noted, the first time I heard about the water propelled car was in 1974. And I later learned that the subject gas been on the drawing boards way before that).
How does it work?
It's very simple. There are two main methods to make a car run on hydrogen. The simplest method starts with a traditional internal combustion engine, which is modified. This method has the advantage of being inexpensive but since these engines are inefficient, everybody is leaning towards the second solution.
The second solution is called the « fuel cell ». This solution is about four times more efficient than the other one. It works on a principle similar to that of a battery, in that a chemical reaction produces electricity, except that in the fuel cell's case, you can keep feeding the fuel cell so that it will never go "flat", or run down, like an ordinary battery does.
The fuel cell uses the stored hydrogen and mixes it with oxygen to create electricity that will feed electric motors. All that will come out of exhaust pipe will be water vapour.
The danger
Is the danger superior with hydrogen than with oil?
The answer would be...yes. That being said, many tests have been done on ultra-strong tanks (much stronger than normal gas tanks) that have shown how safe they are. I have seen testers fire on them with guns, and others drop them from impressive heights. Of course, crash tests have been done as well. All these tests have proved to be successful.
So, why the "but"?
-The first problem resides in the very high cost of this technology so far. We would easily multiply the price of a car by three.
-The second problem has to do with infrastructures. Where do we go to get hydrogen? And in a safe way? Just think about the unbelievable number of gas stations. The most popular prediction regarding the installation of a viable network leans towards fifteen years.
-The third and biggest problem is this one: Hydrogen is not a fuel as such. It's an energy transporter. So, to make hydrogen, you have to use another source of energy, and if we end up producing hydrogen from oil, gas or any other polluting source... the problem remains.
...There's the hick: If to make hydrogen, we use electricity produced from the combustion of oil, gas, coal or any other polluting and green gas emitting source, we do not solve the environmental problem. That's why a hydrogen vehicle must get its fuel (hydrogen) from a non-polluting source like solar, wind, etc.
Of course, we could wonder if the powerful oil and automotive lobbies wouldn't happen to be behind the slow progress of this technology. When you think that in less than ten years, the American people went from a speech to a lunar landing, there are reasons to wonder. But I won't presume of these people's intentions. Even if to do so is very tempting indeed.
That's why we have to be prudent towards the miracle solution that hydrogen cars seem to represent. We are not there yet. What's more, the present American government has lowered present demands for car manufacturers to make their cars more fuel efficient. So, by announcing a subsidy for hydrogen car research, which won't necessarily result in anything concrete, they still favour actual cheaper and doable solutions.
What do we do in the meantime?
As I said before, many scientists see gas-electric hybrid vehicles as the best temporary solution for the next ten to fifteen years. And, in the weeks to come, I will talk to you about other types of fuels.
Bio-diesel, ethanol, natural gas and other alternatives will be studied so that you can know more about them and how much they would cost you if you can use them. I have also been approached by some representatives and inventors that want to show me their miracle solutions. We'll see.
(Answer to the riddle: Ferdinand Porsche in a race car in 1904!)